--- 1/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-37.txt 2022-05-07 19:13:17.146777035 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-38.txt 2022-05-07 19:13:17.246779577 -0700 @@ -1,25 +1,25 @@ Network Working Group D. Farinacci Internet-Draft lispers.net Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) V. Fuller Intended status: Standards Track vaf.net Internet Consulting -Expires: November 3, 2022 D. Meyer +Expires: 8 November 2022 D. Meyer 1-4-5.net D. Lewis Cisco Systems A. Cabellos (Ed.) UPC/BarcelonaTech - May 2, 2022 + 7 May 2022 The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) - draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-37 + draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-38 Abstract This document describes the Data-Plane protocol for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points. With this, LISP effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create overlay networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local Map-Cache. @@ -38,106 +38,105 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on November 3, 2022. + This Internet-Draft will expire on 8 November 2022. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal - Provisions Relating to IETF Documents - (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of - publication of this document. Please review these documents - carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect - to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must - include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of - the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as - described in the Simplified BSD License. + Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ + license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. + Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights + and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components + extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as + described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are + provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Scope of Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 4.1. Deployment on the Public Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 4.1. Deployment on the Public Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 23 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 30 13.1. Locator-Status-Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 13.2. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 13.2. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 - 20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 - B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-37 . . . . . . . . 41 - B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-28 . . . . . . . . 41 - B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 . . . . . . . . 41 - B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 . . . . . . . . 42 - B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 . . . . . . . . 42 - B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 42 - B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 42 - B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 42 - B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 42 - B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 42 - B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 43 - B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 43 - B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 43 - B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 43 - B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 43 - B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 43 - B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 44 - B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 44 - B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 44 - B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 44 - B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 44 - B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 45 - B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 45 - B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 45 - B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 46 - B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 46 - B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 46 - B.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 46 - B.29. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 46 - B.30. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 47 + B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-38 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-37 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-28 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 44 + B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 44 + B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 44 + B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 44 + B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 44 + B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 44 + B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 45 + B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 45 + B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 45 + B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 45 + B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 46 + B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 46 + B.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 46 + B.29. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 46 + B.30. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 47 + B.31. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 47 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 1. Introduction This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and @@ -229,22 +228,22 @@ database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC mappings. Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece of the database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes "behind" the router. These map to one of the router's own IP addresses that are routable on the underlay. Note that there MAY be transient conditions when the EID-Prefix for the LISP site and Locator-Set for each EID-Prefix may not be the same on all ETRs. This has no negative implications, since a partial set of Locators can be used. - EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache: The EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache is generally - short-lived, on-demand table in an ITR that stores, tracks, and is + EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache: The EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache is generally short- + lived, on-demand table in an ITR that stores, tracks, and is responsible for timing out and otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC mappings. This cache is distinct from the full "database" of EID- to-RLOC mappings; it is dynamic, local to the ITR(s), and relatively small, while the database is distributed, relatively static, and much more widely scoped to LISP nodes. EID-Prefix: An EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs that are allocated to a site by an address allocation authority. EID- Prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC addresses. EID-Prefix allocations can be broken up into smaller blocks when an RLOC set @@ -289,24 +288,24 @@ and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its routable RLOCs (in the RLOC space) in the source address field and the result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field. Note that this destination RLOC may be an intermediate, proxy device that has better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the destination EID. In general, an ITR receives IP packets from site end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the Internet on the other side. - LISP Header: LISP header is a term used in this document to refer - to the outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP- - specific 8-octet header that follow the UDP header and that an ITR - prepends or an ETR strips. + LISP Header: LISP header is a term used in this document to refer to + the outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP-specific + 8-octet header that follow the UDP header and that an ITR prepends + or an ETR strips. LISP Router: A LISP router is a router that performs the functions of any or all of the following: ITR, ETR, RTR, Proxy-ITR (PITR), or Proxy-ETR (PETR). LISP Site: LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the edge network from the core network. @@ -392,55 +391,55 @@ prepends LISP headers on host-originated packets and strips them prior to final delivery to their destination. The IP addresses in this "outer header" are RLOCs. During end-to-end packet exchange between two Internet hosts, an ITR prepends a new LISP header to each packet, and an ETR strips the new header. The ITR performs EID-to- RLOC lookups to determine the routing path to the ETR, which has the RLOC as one of its IP addresses. Some basic rules governing LISP are: - o End-systems only send to addresses that are EIDs. EIDs are + * End-systems only send to addresses that are EIDs. EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts (other types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for further information). End- systems don't know that addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume that packets get to their intended destinations. In a system where LISP is deployed, LISP routers intercept EID-addressed packets and assist in delivering them across the network core where EIDs cannot be routed. The procedure a host uses to send IP packets does not change. - o LISP routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses. See + * LISP routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses. See details in Section 4.2 to clarify what is meant by "mostly". - o RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably + * RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably topologically oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing) blocks. - o When a router originates packets, it MAY use as a source address + * When a router originates packets, it MAY use as a source address either an EID or RLOC. When acting as a host (e.g., when terminating a transport session such as Secure SHell (SSH), TELNET, or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it MAY use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that purpose. An EID that identifies the router as a host MUST NOT be used as an RLOC; an EID is only routable within the scope of a site. A typical BGP configuration might demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage where a router could use its "host-like" EID to terminate iBGP sessions to other routers in a site while at the same time using RLOCs to terminate eBGP sessions to routers outside the site. - o Packets with EIDs in them are not expected to be delivered end-to- + * Packets with EIDs in them are not expected to be delivered end-to- end in the absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping operation. They are expected to be used locally for intra-site communication or to be encapsulated for inter-site communication. - o EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for + * EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for local routing within an Autonomous System (AS). An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR when re-routing of the path for a packet is desired. A potential use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform Traffic Engineering for packets flowing through its network. In such a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an additional ITR, and the destination RLOC it uses for the new prepended header would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an intra-ISP traffic engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an @@ -465,57 +464,57 @@ Mixing and matching of site-operated, ISP-operated, and other Tunnel Routers is allowed for maximum flexibility. 4.1. Deployment on the Public Internet Several of the mechanisms in this document are intended for deployment in controlled, trusted environments, and are insecure for use over the public Internet. In particular, on the public internet xTRs: - o MUST set the N, L, E, and V bits in the LISP header (Section 5.1) + * MUST set the N, L, E, and V bits in the LISP header (Section 5.1) to zero. - o MUST NOT use Locator-Status-Bits and echo-nonce, as described in + * MUST NOT use Locator-Status-Bits and echo-nonce, as described in Section 10 for Routing Locator Reachability. Instead MUST rely solely on control-plane methods. - o MUST NOT use Gleaning or Locator-Status-Bits and Map-Versioning, + * MUST NOT use Gleaning or Locator-Status-Bits and Map-Versioning, as described in Section 13 to update the EID-to-RLOC Mappings. Instead relying solely on control-plane methods. 4.2. Packet Flow Sequence This section provides an example of the unicast packet flow, including also Control-Plane information as specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The example also assumes the following conditions: - o Source host "host1.abc.example.com" is sending a packet to + * Source host "host1.abc.example.com" is sending a packet to "host2.xyz.example.com", exactly as it would if the site was not not using LISP. - o Each site is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has an address + * Each site is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has an address (RLOC) assigned from the service provider address block for each provider to which that particular Tunnel Router is attached. - o The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and + * The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and destination, respectively, but the source and destination can be located anywhere in the LISP site. - o A Map-Request is sent for an external destination when the + * A Map-Request is sent for an external destination when the destination is not found in the forwarding table or matches a default route. Map-Requests are sent to the mapping database system by using the LISP Control-Plane protocol documented in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. - o Map-Replies are sent on the underlying routing system topology + * Map-Replies are sent on the underlying routing system topology using the [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] Control-Plane protocol. Client host1.abc.example.com wants to communicate with server host2.xyz.example.com: 1. host1.abc.example.com wants to open a TCP connection to host2.xyz.example.com. It does a DNS lookup on host2.xyz.example.com. An A/AAAA record is returned. This address is the destination EID. The locally assigned address of host1.abc.example.com is used as the source EID. An IPv4 or IPv6 @@ -685,23 +685,23 @@ r + + | | ^ + Destination EID + \ | | \ + + \ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions - Inner Header (IH): The inner header is the header on the - datagram received from the originating host [RFC0791] [RFC8200] - [RFC2474]. The source and destination IP addresses are EIDs. + Inner Header (IH): The inner header is the header on the datagram + received from the originating host [RFC0791] [RFC8200] [RFC2474]. + The source and destination IP addresses are EIDs. Outer Header: (OH) The outer header is a new header prepended by an ITR. The address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress router's EID-to-RLOC Cache. The IP protocol number is "UDP (17)" from [RFC0768]. The setting of the Don't Fragment (DF) bit 'Flags' field is according to rules listed in Sections 7.1 and 7.2. UDP Header: The UDP header contains an ITR selected source port when encapsulating a packet. See Section 12 for details on the hash @@ -742,45 +742,45 @@ this bit is set to 1, the Locator-Status-Bits in the second 32 bits of the LISP header are in use. x 1 x x 0 x x x +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Locator-Status-Bits | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - E: The E-bit is the echo-nonce-request bit. This bit MUST be ignored - and has no meaning when the N-bit is set to 0. When the N-bit is - set to 1 and this bit is set to 1, an ITR is requesting that the - nonce value in the 'Nonce' field be echoed back in LISP- + E: The E-bit is the echo-nonce-request bit. This bit MUST be + ignored and has no meaning when the N-bit is set to 0. When the + N-bit is set to 1 and this bit is set to 1, an ITR is requesting + that the nonce value in the 'Nonce' field be echoed back in LISP- encapsulated packets when the ITR is also an ETR. See Section 10.1 for details. - V: The V-bit is the Map-Version present bit. When this bit is set to - 1, the N-bit MUST be 0. Refer to the [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] + V: The V-bit is the Map-Version present bit. When this bit is set + to 1, the N-bit MUST be 0. Refer to the [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] specification for more details on Database Map-Versioning. This bit indicates that the LISP header is encoded in this case as: 0 x 0 1 x x x x +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Source Map-Version | Dest Map-Version | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - I: The I-bit is the Instance ID bit. See Section 8 for more details. - When this bit is set to 1, the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field is - reduced to 8 bits and the high-order 24 bits are used as an - Instance ID. If the L-bit is set to 0, then the low-order 8 bits - are transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt. The format of the - LISP header would look like this: + I: The I-bit is the Instance ID bit. See Section 8 for more + details. When this bit is set to 1, the 'Locator-Status-Bits' + field is reduced to 8 bits and the high-order 24 bits are used as + an Instance ID. If the L-bit is set to 0, then the low-order + 8 bits are transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt. The format + of the LISP header would look like this: x x x x 1 x x x +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Instance ID | LSBs | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ R: The R-bit is a Reserved and unassigned bit for future use. It MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt. @@ -816,54 +816,54 @@ the ETRs at the same site. When a site has multiple EID-Prefixes that result in multiple mappings (where each could have a different Locator-Set), the Locator-Status-Bits setting in an encapsulated packet MUST reflect the mapping for the EID-Prefix that the inner-header source EID address matches (longest-match). If the LSB for an anycast Locator is set to 1, then there is at least one RLOC with that address, and the ETR is considered 'up'. When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: - o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in + * The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' field. - o The outer-header IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) + * The outer-header IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6, SHOULD be copied from the inner-header IPv4 DSCP field or 'Traffic Class' field in the case of IPv6, to the outer-header. Guidelines for this can be found at [RFC2983]. - o The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field and bits 6 + * The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field and bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion as specified in [RFC6040]. When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: - o The inner-header IPv4 'Time to Live' field or 'Hop Limit' field in + * The inner-header IPv4 'Time to Live' field or 'Hop Limit' field in the case of IPv6, MUST be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' field, when the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' value of the outer header is less than the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check can cause the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' of the inner header to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. - o The outer-header IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) + * The outer-header IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field or the 'Traffic Class' field in the case of IPv6, SHOULD be copied from the outer-header IPv4 DSCP field or 'Traffic Class' field in the case of IPv6, to the inner-header. Guidelines for this can be found at [RFC2983]. - o The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field and bits 6 + * The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field and bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field, requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion as specified in [RFC6040]. Note that implementations exist that copy the 'ECN' field from the outer header to the inner header even though [RFC6040] does not recommend this behavior. It is RECOMMENDED that implementations change to support the behavior in [RFC6040]. Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re- encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the @@ -1074,44 +1074,44 @@ The RLOC with the lowest 'Priority' is selected. An RLOC with 'Priority' 255 means that MUST NOT be used for forwarding. When multiple RLOCs have the same 'Priority' then the 'Weight' states how to load balance traffic among them. The value of the 'Weight' represents the relative weight of the total packets that match the mapping entry. The following are different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and the controls that are available: - o The server-side returns one RLOC. The client-side can only use + * The server-side returns one RLOC. The client-side can only use one RLOC. The server-side has complete control of the selection. - o The server-side returns a list of RLOCs where a subset of the list + * The server-side returns a list of RLOCs where a subset of the list has the same best Priority. The client can only use the subset list according to the weighting assigned by the server-side. In this case, the server-side controls both the subset list and load- splitting across its members. The client-side can use RLOCs outside of the subset list if it determines that the subset list is unreachable (unless RLOCs are set to a Priority of 255). Some sharing of control exists: the server-side determines the destination RLOC list and load distribution while the client-side has the option of using alternatives to this list if RLOCs in the list are unreachable. - o The server-side sets a Weight of zero for the RLOC subset list. + * The server-side sets a Weight of zero for the RLOC subset list. In this case, the client-side can choose how the traffic load is spread across the subset list. See Section 12 for details on load-sharing mechanisms. Control is shared by the server-side determining the list and the client-side determining load distribution. Again, the client can use alternative RLOCs if the server-provided list of RLOCs is unreachable. - o Either side (more likely the server-side ETR) decides to "glean" + * Either side (more likely the server-side ETR) decides to "glean" the RLOCs. For example, if the server-side ETR gleans RLOCs, then the client-side ITR gives the client-side ITR responsibility for bidirectional RLOC reachability and preferability. Server-side ETR gleaning of the client-side ITR RLOC is done by caching the inner-header source EID and the outer-header source RLOC of received packets. The client-side ITR controls how traffic is returned and can alternate using an outer-header source RLOC, which then can be added to the list the server-side ETR uses to return traffic. Since no Priority or Weights are provided using this method, the server-side ETR MUST assume that each client-side @@ -1164,24 +1164,24 @@ 3. An ITR/ETR pair can use the 'Echo-Noncing' Locator reachability algorithms described in this section. When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the Locator-Status-Bits from the LISP-encapsulated data packet, an ETR will receive up-to-date status from an encapsulating ITR about reachability for all ETRs at the site. CE-based ITRs at the source site can determine reachability relative to each other using the site IGP as follows: - o Under normal circumstances, each ITR will advertise a default + * Under normal circumstances, each ITR will advertise a default route into the site IGP. - o If an ITR fails or if the upstream link to its PE fails, its + * If an ITR fails or if the upstream link to its PE fails, its default route will either time out or be withdrawn. Each ITR can thus observe the presence or lack of a default route originated by the others to determine the Locator-Status-Bits it sets for them. When ITRs at the site are not deployed in CE routers, the IGP can still be used to determine the reachability of Locators, provided they are injected into the IGP. This is typically done when a /32 address is configured on a loopback interface. @@ -1408,56 +1407,32 @@ destination xTR to retreive the updated EID-to-RLOC mappings. A RECOMMENDED value for the 'use-LSB' timer is 5 minutes. 13.2. Database Map-Versioning When there is unidirectional packet flow between an ITR and ETR, and the EID-to-RLOC mappings change on the ETR, it needs to inform the ITR so encapsulation to a removed Locator can stop and can instead be started to a new Locator in the Locator-Set. - An ETR, when it sends Map-Reply messages, conveys its own Map-Version - Number. This is known as the Destination Map-Version Number. ITRs - include the Destination Map-Version Number in packets they - encapsulate to the site. When an ETR decapsulates a packet and - detects that the Destination Map-Version Number is less than the - current version for its mapping, the SMR procedure described in - [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] occurs. + An ETR, can send Map-Reply messages carrying a Map-Version Number in + an EID-record. This is known as the Destination Map-Version Number. + ITRs include the Destination Map-Version Number in packets they + encapsulate to the site. An ITR, when it encapsulates packets to ETRs, can convey its own Map- Version Number. This is known as the Source Map-Version Number. - When an ETR decapsulates a packet and detects that the Source Map- - Version Number is greater than the last Map-Version Number sent in a - Map-Reply from the ITR's site, the ETR will send a Map-Request to one - of the ETRs for the source site. - - A Map-Version Number is used as a sequence number per EID-Prefix, so - values that are greater are considered to be more recent. A value of - 0 for the Source Map-Version Number or the Destination Map-Version - Number conveys no versioning information, and an ITR does no - comparison with previously received Map-Version Numbers. - A Map-Version Number can be included in Map-Register messages as - well. This is a good way for the Map-Server to assure that all ETRs - for a site registering to it will be synchronized according to Map- - Version Number. - - Map-Version requires that ETRs within the LISP site are synchronized - with respect to the Map-Version Number, EID-prefix and the set and - status (up/down) of the RLOCs. The use of Map-Versioning without - proper synchronization may cause traffic disruption. The - synchronization protocol is out-of-the-scope of this document, but - MUST keep ETRs synchronized within a 1 minute window. - - Map-Versioning MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD - only be used in trusted and closed deployments. Refer to Section 16 - for security issues regarding this mechanism. + When presented in EID-records of Map-Register messages, a Map-Version + Number is a good way for the Map-Server to assure that all ETRs for a + site registering to it are synchronized according to Map-Version + Number. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] for a more detailed analysis and description of Database Map-Versioning. 14. Multicast Considerations A multicast group address, as defined in the original Internet architecture, is an identifier of a grouping of topologically independent receiver host locations. The address encoding itself does not determine the location of the receiver(s). The multicast @@ -1488,40 +1463,40 @@ respectively, for details. Details for LISP-Multicast and interworking with non-LISP sites are described in [RFC6831] and [RFC6832]. 15. Router Performance Considerations LISP is designed to be very "hardware-based forwarding friendly". A few implementation techniques can be used to incrementally implement LISP: - o When a tunnel-encapsulated packet is received by an ETR, the outer + * When a tunnel-encapsulated packet is received by an ETR, the outer destination address may not be the address of the router. This makes it challenging for the control plane to get packets from the hardware. This may be mitigated by creating special Forwarding Information Base (FIB) entries for the EID-Prefixes of EIDs served by the ETR (those for which the router provides an RLOC translation). These FIB entries are marked with a flag indicating that Control-Plane processing SHOULD be performed. The forwarding logic of testing for particular IP protocol number values is not necessary. There are a few proven cases where no changes to existing deployed hardware were needed to support the LISP Data- Plane. - o On an ITR, prepending a new IP header consists of adding more + * On an ITR, prepending a new IP header consists of adding more octets to a MAC rewrite string and prepending the string as part of the outgoing encapsulation procedure. Routers that support Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4 tunneling [RFC3056] may already support this action. - o A packet's source address or interface the packet was received on + * A packet's source address or interface the packet was received on can be used to select VRF (Virtual Routing/Forwarding). The VRF's routing table can be used to find EID-to-RLOC mappings. For performance issues related to Map-Cache management, see Section 16. 16. Security Considerations In what follows we highlight security considerations that apply when LISP is deployed in environments such as those specified in @@ -1591,39 +1566,39 @@ Considerations for network management tools exist so the LISP protocol suite can be operationally managed. These mechanisms can be found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835]. 18. Changes since RFC 6830 For implementation considerations, the following changes have been made to this document since RFC 6830 was published: - o It is no longer mandated that a maximum number of 2 LISP headers + * It is no longer mandated that a maximum number of 2 LISP headers be prepended to a packet. If there is a application need for more than 2 LISP headers, an implementation can support more. However, it is RECOMMENDED that a maximum of two LISP headers can be prepended to a packet. - o The 3 reserved flag bits in the LISP header have been allocated + * The 3 reserved flag bits in the LISP header have been allocated for [RFC8061]. The low-order 2 bits of the 3-bit field (now named the KK bits) are used as a key identifier. The 1 remaining bit is still documented as reserved and unassigned. - o Data-Plane gleaning for creating map-cache entries has been made + * Data-Plane gleaning for creating map-cache entries has been made optional. Any ITR implementations that depend on or assume the remote ETR is gleaning should not do so. This does not create any interoperability problems since the control-plane map-cache population procedures are unilateral and are the typical method for map-cache population. - o The bulk of the changes to this document which reduces its length + * The bulk of the changes to this document which reduces its length are due to moving the LISP control-plane messaging and procedures to [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. 19. IANA Considerations This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this Data-Plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126]. 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers @@ -1633,28 +1608,32 @@ follows: lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets 20. References 20.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID - Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf- - lisp-6834bis-09 (work in progress), August 2021. + Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", Work in + Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-10, 3 + May 2022, . [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", - draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-30 (work in progress), November - 2020. + Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp- + rfc6833bis-31, 2 May 2022, + . [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, . [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate @@ -1720,46 +1699,52 @@ [AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016, . [CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed", 1999, . [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] Cabellos, A. and D. S. (Ed.), "An Architectural Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol - (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-15 (work in - progress), September 2021. + (LISP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- + lisp-introduction-15, 20 September 2021, + . [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private - Networks (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-08 (work in - progress), January 2022. + Networks (VPNs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- + ietf-lisp-vpn-08, 18 January 2022, + . [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud] Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tuexen, M., Ruengeler, I., and T. Voelker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for - Datagram Transports", draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-22 - (work in progress), June 2020. + Datagram Transports", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, + draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-22, 10 June 2020, + . [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, . [RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191, DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990, . - [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., - and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", - BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, - . + [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G. + J., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private + Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, + February 1996, . [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", RFC 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC1981, August 1996, . [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000, . @@ -1889,317 +1874,319 @@ Kaduk, Eric Rescorla, Alvaro Retana, Alexey Melnikov, Alissa Cooper, Suresh Krishnan, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal, Vina Ermagen, Mohamed Boucadair, Brian Trammell, Sabrina Tanamal, and John Drake. The contributions they offered greatly added to the security, scale, and robustness of the LISP architecture and protocols. Appendix B. Document Change Log [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] -B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-37 +B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-38 - o Posted May 2022. + * Posted May 2022. - o Added references to 6834bis instead of pointing text to + * Removed detailed parapgraphs in Section 13.2 that is duplicated + text from [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis], which is the authoritative + source for Map Versioning. + +B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-37 + + * Posted May 2022. + + * Added references to 6834bis instead of pointing text to Section 13.2. This is so we can advance the Map-Versioning draft rfc6834bis to proposed standard. -B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-28 +B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-28 - o Posted November 2019. + * Posted November 2019. - o Fixed how LSB behave in the presence of new/removed locators. + * Fixed how LSB behave in the presence of new/removed locators. - o Added ETR synchronization requirements when using Map-Versioning. + * Added ETR synchronization requirements when using Map-Versioning. - o Fixed a large set of minor comments and edits. + * Fixed a large set of minor comments and edits. -B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 +B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 - o Posted April 2019 post telechat. + * Posted April 2019 post telechat. - o Made editorial corrections per Warren's suggestions. + * Made editorial corrections per Warren's suggestions. - o Put in suggested text from Luigi that Mirja agreed with. + * Put in suggested text from Luigi that Mirja agreed with. - o LSB, Echo-Nonce and Map-Versioning SHOULD be only used in closed + * LSB, Echo-Nonce and Map-Versioning SHOULD be only used in closed environments. - o Removed paragraph stating that Instance-ID can be 32-bit in the + * Removed paragraph stating that Instance-ID can be 32-bit in the control-plane. - o 6831/8378 are now normative. + * 6831/8378 are now normative. - o Rewritten Security Considerations according to the changes. + * Rewritten Security Considerations according to the changes. - o Stated that LSB SHOULD be coupled with Map-Versioning. + * Stated that LSB SHOULD be coupled with Map-Versioning. -B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 +B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 - o Posted late October 2018. + * Posted late October 2018. - o Changed description about "reserved" bits to state "reserved and + * Changed description about "reserved" bits to state "reserved and unassigned". -B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 +B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 - o Posted mid October 2018. + * Posted mid October 2018. - o Added more to the Security Considerations section with discussion + * Added more to the Security Considerations section with discussion about echo-nonce attacks. -B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 +B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 - o Posted mid October 2018. + * Posted mid October 2018. - o Final editorial changes for Eric and Ben. + * Final editorial changes for Eric and Ben. -B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 +B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 - o Posted early October 2018. + * Posted early October 2018. - o Added an applicability statement in section 1 to address security + * Added an applicability statement in section 1 to address security concerns from Telechat. -B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 +B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 - o Posted early October 2018. + * Posted early October 2018. - o Changes to reflect comments post Telechat. + * Changes to reflect comments post Telechat. -B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 +B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 - o Posted late-September 2018. + * Posted late-September 2018. - o Changes to reflect comments from Sep 27th Telechat. + * Changes to reflect comments from Sep 27th Telechat. -B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 +B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 - o Posted late-September 2018. + * Posted late-September 2018. - o Fix old reference to RFC3168, changed to RFC6040. + * Fix old reference to RFC3168, changed to RFC6040. -B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 +B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 - o Posted late-September 2018. + * Posted late-September 2018. - o More editorial changes. + * More editorial changes. -B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 +B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 - o Posted mid-September 2018. + * Posted mid-September 2018. - o Changes to reflect comments from Secdir review (Mirja). + * Changes to reflect comments from Secdir review (Mirja). -B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 +B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 - o Posted September 2018. + * Posted September 2018. - o Indicate in the "Changes since RFC 6830" section why the document + * Indicate in the "Changes since RFC 6830" section why the document has been shortened in length. - o Make reference to RFC 8085 about UDP congestion control. + * Make reference to RFC 8085 about UDP congestion control. - o More editorial changes from multiple IESG reviews. + * More editorial changes from multiple IESG reviews. -B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 +B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 - o Posted late August 2018. + * Posted late August 2018. - o Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP + * Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP for IPv6 for handling MTU issues. -B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 +B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 - o Posted August 2018. + * Posted August 2018. - o Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed + * Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed Standard. - o Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementers are + * Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementers are informed of any changes since the last RFC publication. -B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 +B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 - o Posted July 2018 IETF week. + * Posted July 2018 IETF week. - o Put obsolete of RFC 6830 in Intro section in addition to abstract. + * Put obsolete of RFC 6830 in Intro section in addition to abstract. -B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 +B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 - o Posted March IETF Week 2018. + * Posted March IETF Week 2018. - o Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC. + * Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC. - o Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new + * Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new OAM document. - o Some references changed from normative to informative + * Some references changed from normative to informative -B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 +B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 - o Posted July 2018. + * Posted July 2018. - o Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status. + * Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status. -B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 +B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 - o Posted March 2018. + * Posted March 2018. - o Removed sections 16, 17 and 18 (Mobility, Deployment and + * Removed sections 16, 17 and 18 (Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute considerations). This text must be placed in a new OAM document. -B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 +B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 - o Posted March 2018. + * Posted March 2018. - o Updated section 'Router Locator Selection' stating that the Data- + * Updated section 'Router Locator Selection' stating that the Data- Plane MUST follow what's stored in the Map-Cache (priorities and weights). - o Section 'Routing Locator Reachability': Removed bullet point 2 + * Section 'Routing Locator Reachability': Removed bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC probing - o Removed 'Solicit-Map Request'. + * Removed 'Solicit-Map Request'. -B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 +B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 - o Posted January 2018. + * Posted January 2018. - o Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during + * Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during encapsulation and decapsulation. - o Added clarity to definitions in the Definition of Terms section + * Added clarity to definitions in the Definition of Terms section from various commenters. - o Removed PA and PI definitions from Definition of Terms section. + * Removed PA and PI definitions from Definition of Terms section. - o More editorial changes. + * More editorial changes. - o Removed 4342 from IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section. + * Removed 4342 from IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section. -B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 +B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 - o Posted January 2018. + * Posted January 2018. - o Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms. + * Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms. - o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant. + * Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant. - o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi + * Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi Iannone. - o Ran IDNITs on the document. + * Ran IDNITs on the document. -B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 +B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 - o Posted November 2017. + * Posted November 2017. - o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918] + * Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918] addresses. -B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 +B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 - o Posted October 2017. + * Posted October 2017. - o Put RTR definition before it is used. + * Put RTR definition before it is used. - o Rename references that are now working group drafts. + * Rename references that are now working group drafts. - o Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other + * Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs". - o Indicate what address-family can appear in data packets. + * Indicate what address-family can appear in data packets. - o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies. + * ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies. - o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2. + * Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2. - o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID. + * Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID. - o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node. + * Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node. - o Clarify when private addresses can be used. + * Clarify when private addresses can be used. -B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 +B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 - o Posted August 2017. + * Posted August 2017. - o Make it clear that a Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR. + * Make it clear that a Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR. -B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 +B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 - o Posted July 2017. + * Posted July 2017. - o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200. + * Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200. - o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums + * Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936. -B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 +B.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 - o Posted May 2017. + * Posted May 2017. - o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA + * Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA Considerations section to RFC6833bis. -B.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 +B.29. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 - o Posted April 2017. + * Posted April 2017. - o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez. + * Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez. -B.29. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 +B.30. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 - o Posted March 2017. + * Posted March 2017. - o Include references to new RFCs published. + * Include references to new RFCs published. - o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis. + * Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis. - o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section. + * Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section. - o Remove references to "experimental". + * Remove references to "experimental". -B.30. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 +B.31. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 - o Posted December 2016. + * Posted December 2016. - o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp + * Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp -rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made. Authors' Addresses Dino Farinacci lispers.net - - EMail: farinacci@gmail.com + Email: farinacci@gmail.com Vince Fuller vaf.net Internet Consulting - - EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com + Email: vince.fuller@gmail.com Dave Meyer 1-4-5.net - - EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net + Email: dmm@1-4-5.net Darrel Lewis Cisco Systems 170 Tasman Drive San Jose, CA - USA - - EMail: darlewis@cisco.com - + United States of America + Email: darlewis@cisco.com Albert Cabellos UPC/BarcelonaTech Campus Nord, C. Jordi Girona 1-3 - Barcelona, Catalunya + Barcelona Catalunya Spain - - EMail: acabello@ac.upc.edu + Email: acabello@ac.upc.edu